Advertisement

Fluid Management in Acute Kidney Injury

  • M. OstermannEmail author
  • A. More
  • S. Jog
Chapter
Part of the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine book series (AUICEM)

Abstract

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is very common during critical illness affecting >50% of patients and associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high health care costs [1]. The traditional strategy for managing patients at risk or with established AKI often involves high volume fluid administration due to fear of untreated hypovolemia [2]. Whilst timely fluid administration may be beneficial if AKI is indeed precipitated by intravascular volume depletion, there is increasing evidence that excessive fluid resuscitation beyond correction of hypovolemia leads to adverse outcomes, including worsening of renal function [3–6]. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that certain types of fluids are nephrotoxic [3, 6–9].

References

  1. 1.
    Hoste EA, Bagshaw SM, Bellomo R, et al. Epidemiology of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: the multinational AKI-EPI study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1411–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:486–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Finfer S, Myburgh J, Bellomo R. Intravenous fluid therapy in critically ill adults. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2018;14:541–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martensson J, Bellomo R. Does fluid management affect the occurrence of acute kidney injury? Curr Opin Anesthesiol. 2017;30:84–91.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prowle JR, Echeverri JE, Ligabo EV, Ronco C, Bellomo R. Fluid balance and acute kidney injury. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2010;6:107–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perner A, Prowle J, Joannidis M, Young P, Hjortrup PB, Pettilä V. Fluid management in acute kidney injury. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:807–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mutter TC, Ruth CA, Dart AB. Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD007594.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Myburgh JA, Finfer S, Bellomo R, et al. Hydroxyethylstarch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1901–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perner A, Haase N, Guttomsen AB, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:124–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bayer O, Reinhart K, Kohl M, et al. Effects of fluid resuscitation with synthetic colloids or crystalloids alone on shock reversal, fluid balance, and patient outcomes in patients with severe sepsis: a prospective sequential analysis. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:2543–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moeller C, Fleischmann C, Thomas-Rueddel D, et al. How safe is gelatin? A systematic review and meta-analysis of gelatin-containing plasma expanders vs crystalloids and albumin. J Crit Care. 2016;35:75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, et al. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2247–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Myburgh J, Cooper DJ, Finfer S, et al. Saline or albumin for fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:874–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caironi P, Tognoni G, Masson S, et al. Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1412–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rochwerg B, Alhazzani W, Gibson A, et al. Fluid type and the use of renal replacement therapy in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1561–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee EH, Kim WJ, Kim JY, et al. Effect of exogenous albumin on the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery with a preoperative albumin level of less than 4.0g/dL. Anesthesiology. 2016;124:1001–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    KDIGO AKI Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:1–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joannidis M, Druml W, Forni LG, et al. Prevention of acute kidney injury and protection of renal function in the intensive care unit: update 2017: expert opinion of the Working Group on Prevention, AKI section, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:730–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilcox CS. Regulation of renal blood flow by plasma chloride. J Clin Invest. 1983;71:726–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bullivant EM, Wilcox CS, Welch WJ. Intrarenal vasoconstriction during hyperchloremia: role of thromboxane. Am J Phys. 1989;256:F152–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chowdhury AH, Cox EF, Francis ST, Lobo DN. A randomized, controlled, double-blind crossover study on the effects of 2-L infusions of 0.9% saline and plasma-lyte® 148 on renal blood flow velocity and renal cortical tissue perfusion in healthy volunteers. Ann Surg. 2012;256:18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCluskey SA, Karkouti K, Wijeysundera D, Minkovich L, Tait G, Beattie WS. Hyperchloremia after noncardiac surgery is independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality: a propensity-matched cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2013;117:412–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raghunathan K, Shaw A, Nathanson B, et al. Association between the choice of IV crystalloid and inhospital mortality among critically ill adults with sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:1585–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yunos NM, Bellomo R, Hegarty C, Story D, Ho L, Bailey M. Association between a chloride- liberal vs chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration strategy and kidney injury in critically ill adults. JAMA. 2012;308:1566–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Young P, Bailey M, Beasley R, et al. Effect of a buffered crystalloid solution vs saline on acute kidney injury among patients in the intensive care unit: the SPLIT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1701–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:829–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sen A, Keener CM, Sileanu FE, et al. Chloride content of fluids used for large-volume resuscitation is associated with reduced survival. Crit Care Med. 2016;45:e146–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Payen D, de Pont AC, Sakr Y, Spies C, Reinhart K, Vincent JL, Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients (SOAP) Investigators. A positive fluid balance is associated with a worse outcome in patients with acute renal failure. Crit Care. 2008;12:R74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garzotto F, Ostermann M, Martin-Langenwerf D, et al. The Dose Response Multicentre Investigation on Fluid Assessment (DoReMIFA) in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2016;20:196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raimundo M, Crichton S, Martin JR, et al. Increased fluid administration after early acute kidney injury is associated with less renal recovery. Shock. 2015;44:431–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Skytte Larsson J, Bragadottir G, Krumbholz V, et al. Effects of acute plasma volume expansion on renal perfusion, filtration, and oxygenation after cardiac surgery: a randomized study on crytstalloid vs colloid. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:736–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Monnet X, Marik PE, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6:111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? an updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1774–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Osman D, Ridel C, Ray P, et al. Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:64–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang Z, Xu X, Ye S, Xu L. Ultrasonographic measurement of the respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava diameter is predictive of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014;40:845–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Airapetian N, Maizel J, Alyamani O, et al. Does inferior vena cava respiratory variability predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients? Crit Care. 2015;19:400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cherpanath TG, Hirsch A, Geerts BF, et al. Predicting fluid responsiveness by passive leg raising: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 clinical trials. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:981–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Monnet X, Marik P, Teboul JL. Passive leg raising for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1935–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Silva S, Jozwiak M, Teboul JL, Persichini R, Richard C, Monnet X. End-expiratory occlusion test predicts preload responsiveness independently of positive end-expiratory pressure during acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1692–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yang X, Du B. Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2014;18:650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2642–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ma IWY, Caplin JD, Azad A, et al. Correlation of carotid blood flow and corrected carotid flow time with invasive cardiac output measurements. Crit Ultrasound J. 2017;9:10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hjortrup PB, Haase N, Bundgaard H, et al. Restricting volumes of resuscitation fluid in adults with septic shock after initial management: the CLASSIC randomised, parallel-group, multicentre feasibility trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1695–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wong F. Recent advances in our understanding of hepatorenal syndrome. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;9:382–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bucsics T, Krones E. Renal dysfunction in cirrhosis: acute kidney injury and the hepatorenal syndrome. Gastroenterol Rep. 2017;5:127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Israelsen M, Krag A, Allegretti AS, et al. Terlipressin versus other vasoactive drugs for hepatorenal syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:CD011532.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singh V, Ghosh S, Singh B, et al. Noradrenaline vs. terlipressin in the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome: a randomized study. J Hepatol. 2012;56:1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Critical CareKing’s College London, Guy’s & St Thomas’ HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Division of Critical CareChristian Medical College HospitalVelloreIndia
  3. 3.Department of Critical CareDeenanath Mangeshkar Hospital and Research CenterPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations